later, a member of the hardest to of politics as a result of the latest poll of voting participation and political ideology. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: the official start of the white house bid, the president said he needs to start with 2012 long before he starts campaigning. we will focus on the republican side of 2012 candidate to this

morning. who do you think should run? who stands the best chance of defeating barack obama? for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. here is "the christian science monitor" this morning.

think thisdo you morning, the morning the president obama announced his reelection bid? republicans, who should run against him? peter, you are first. go ahead. caller: first of all, thank you very much for c-span. it is a fantastic service to the country. i am interested in the article that you just read. it does not mention one of the great candidates out there, herman kane. host: it does mention him, as a long shot. the only african-american in the field. caller: i think one of the most outstanding men of achievement

in the field. someone that, frankly, the country is ready for. a person that can come in and lead and not have the political baggage of the other candidates. that is my comment. thank you for c-span. host: all right. martin, cordova. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about this? who should run as the republican candidate in 2012? caller: what you will hear throughout this segment is that there is a great and vast pool of candidates that are more than capable of bringing the country to where it needs to be and i am, frankly, looking forward to the documentary of the obama- pelosi-harry reid regime called atlas shrugged. mostly i am pushing for mitch

daniels. host: all right, why mitch daniels? caller: the bottom line is that the sad thing about the 2008 election is that we chose someone who had a great story and a great ability to give a speech. we have clearly seen that it is an empty suit. now we want someone who was a grown up with a record of accomplishment. mitch daniels is clearly the kind of person. host: bob, go ahead. caller: there is only one republican i would even consider voting for. if he does not run -- that is ron paul. if he would not be the nominee, i will vote third party like i did the last time around.

i think that he is highly qualified. he is a conservative. you can look at his voting record. it is excellent. the military has gotten out of hand. he just makes good common sense. host: what about his son, rand paul? caller: he would be a good second choice, but i like his father. his record speaks for itself. host: love vernon, richard, -- mount vernon, richard, new york. what do you think? caller: i would like to see alan west be the ticket. host: why is that? caller: he was drummed out of the service because he did not care one way or the other what

was good for him. what he did was he shot a gun at terrorists to save lives. he got the information by shooting a gun at the man. it was not politically correct but he did not care about that. not like the person we have in the white house, who is worried about the polls, being president, allowing illegal immigrants to come to this country with drugs. host: you have heard from the front page this morning, "gop vows to stand brown."

host: in new jersey, deborah, independent, your thoughts? caller: i would not be interested in any of the current republican slate. they are all pro-establishment. i would like to see congressman ron paul. i think that he speaks truth to power. he hears his proposals to the founding fathers concept of government i would like to see -- government. i would like to see chuck cale from nebraska. i think that he is a stand-up

person with truth and honesty. host: have you ever voted for a democrat? caller: i voted for a democrat in my first year. host: stony brook, maine, democratic line. you are on the air. caller: myself, i would like to see someone run on either side that is the ordinary working man. someone who has not been a career politician. someone who knows what it is like to lose your job and live paycheck to paycheck. there are a lot of unemployed, hard-working people out there that would love to have the job and take it for half the money. host: anyone out there that represents those characteristics? caller: i do not know of anyone yet, but i am sure that there

must be someone. host: did you vote for president obama in 2008? caller: yes, i did. host: are you not going to vote for him again? caller: i am on the fence. i feel that he is trying to do what is right, but nothing seems to be working from what i can see. the state of maine is hurting. there is not a lot of work up here. the fishing business is going down the toilet. it is not good. i would like to see someone who did not have a silver spoon born in the mouth. host: in the e-mail that president obama sent to supporters this morning, he mentioned that several things. first, i want to show you the logo that is part of the campaign. this is what it will look like. there is the web site, right there. in it he explains why he is

making the announcement 20 months beforehand. host: susan, republican line, new jersey. good morning. well let's try? republican line? let's move on. salem, indiana. good morning. caller: how is it going dempster -- how is it going?

the republicans have not produced any one that can be a match for obama. for the cards he has been dealt, he has done a good job. the republicans are like -- everything obama says, whether he is right or wrong, they want to counteract them, even when he makes the right decision. as soon as he goes in, republicans say they should but. obama is doing a great job and i do not think that a republican has been produced to counter his presidency. host: who do you think, on the republican side, could best challenge president obama on that issue?

caller: if you look at the libyan crisis, civilians are being killed. he took swift action to prevent that from happening. first the republicans wanted us to go into libya, and as soon as we go in and they start to criticize him. they are very which she washy. -- wishy washy. host: we will keep talking about this this morning on open quote washington journal." -- "washington journal." we also wanted to talk about congress, back in session this week. they face a deadline, friday the eighth, to keep the government running.

here is "politico" this morning , killing president obama on the phone. -- showing president obama on the phone.

host: and other newspapers talking about debates this week. we will talk more about that this morning at 7:45 with gail russel chaddock. aggie, democratic line, michigan. caller: you mentioned a lot of candidates, but unfortunately the republican party will need the democratic bowed to get a president in office. -- need the democratic vote to get a president in office. unfortunately, the only person qualified is donald trump. if they cannot get a crossover, they will not be obama. if donald trump plan, we would not even vote -- if donald

trump's rand, we would not even vote. president obama would win again. they put enough money in that one program to give every man, woman, and child in the u.s. $1 million each. they could cut out medicaid. there are billions of dollars in programs like this every year. one program cut would give us what we need. host: harry reid was on "face the nation" yesterday, here is what he had to say. caller: by always look at the glass as half full. it is so easy to do, in washington terms. it is just a question of how we

do it. we cannot do it on a program for little kids. as developed by president nixon or the first president bush, all of those programs have not contributed to the debt. let's look at the worker programs that contribute to the debt. host: that is where the funding comes from, in an annapolis we are talking about 2012 republicans. host: -- caller: you figure that a president, four years ago, accounting for the things that take two years to come to all

this start with. once it gets accomplished there is so much information, he settles in and they will not be able to make changes. host: you are a republican? this is what they say in "the christian science monitor."

caller: i agree with that, but we need a president that has a bipartisan attitude. if we can find someone like that, which we do not have, kind of half and half. mike huckabee will not work. michele bachman, that will not work either. working on both sides, maybe we have something. host: from the front page of "the new york times" by the way, the star of the tea party service iowa. her last name is not palin. this is what the article says.

host: tom? caller: i.t. review, and i agree, but the only problem is that -- i can hear you, and i agree, but the only problem is that she attaches the tea party to her name. that will turn off a lot of democrats. i understand the excitement around her and what she is bringing out, but i do not think it will be enough. it is the same stigma we had with obama being the first black president. she would be the first woman. if that is a snowball that rolls, it could happen, but you would have to get a lot of excitement from that. host: her party would have time

to organize by august, the first test of her influence in the field. hinckley, minn., independent. what do you think michele bachman? steven? caller: good morning? host: who is this? caller: is this c-span? host: i think we have got the wrong line. let's get those phone lines straightened out. we will get back to them in a minute. another article from "the washington post."

host: rockport, texas. john, independent line. go ahead. you are on the air, turned down that television. caller: ok. yes. go ahead, we are listening. -- host: go ahead, we are listening. caller: i think that michele bachman would be fine, but i agree with the other caller.

when she labor -- labels herself the tea party, democrats demonized them so much. it is not the democratic party anymore, it is the socialist party. americans need to recognize that. they need to see it for what it is. the democrats are not the democrats, they are actually socialists who have been hijacked. probably about 30 years ago. we need to wake up on that. michelle bachman, if she really wants to -- i am an independent, but the tea party has been demonized too much and the media has fallen for it. that is how i feel. host: as republicans in democrats continued to debate

over how to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, this week house republicans are going to reveal the 2012 budget. paul ryan was on the sunday talk show yesterday. this is what he had to say about his plan, which is expected to be unveiled tomorrow. >> this premium support system is very different from a voucher. something that members of congress have. it is similar to medicare advantage. meaning that medicare puts out a list of plants that compete for your business and seniors take the plan of their choosing, medicare subsidizes that plan. more for the poor, for the people who get sick, and less money goes to the people who are

wealthy. doing that saves medicare. host: here is how the headlines are different in the papers this plan.g on the paul bryant pryan host: here is how "the los angeles times" frames the story this morning. host: we will be looking out for that tomorrow.

this could become part of the week's negotiations to keep the government running for this fiscal year. pat, democratic line, who should run? caller: they should all stay home. they are not serious about doing anything for the working people. achman is a completecomple nut. they want to cut out planned parenthood. they want the oil companies to keep all of their profits. barbra streisand, she says tax me. most rich people do not donate to the national debt. host: let's hear from a republican.

joe, missouri. caller: i would like to see donald trump's and sarah palin as his vp. previous callers have given you and i date -- an idea of the socialist agenda. stick it to the rich people. they expect everyone else to pay for these programs. those of us who have served in the military and are still serving, they are stabbing us in the back as they pretend to support us all the time. host: why mr. trump? caller: he has run all of these businesses. he knows what it takes for a

business to succeed and for people to get money. we have seen what happens in minnesota and these other places where you do not have the money to pay the union and you try to make them take responsibility. they do not care that the rest of us cannot afford anything. they want theirs. they want now. host: this is from "the new york times" op-ed page.

host: harlem, new york. juanita? caller: i would love to see dennis kucinich run with the

former congressman from florida. i would love to see them on the 2012 ticket. host: why is that? caller: they are the only ones that assert any credibility or morals. they would run this country constitutionally. right now the president is a constitutional scholar. he has not mentioned the constitution once as he makes his decisions. dennis kucinich would be good. host: democratic line, good morning. caller: i have not read the article from "the christian science monitor." i do not know what it says about jon huntsman jr. i think that he should be considered he is the only one that obama cared enough to neutralize and appoint

ambassador to china. that speaks to how serious a candidate he would be. host: what do you know about his record? what would make him a good challenge to president obama? caller: he is a fiscal conservative from a well run state. he has not had budget problems here. he came out to support the unions. host: what do you think about the obstacles that he might face in knocking off mitt romney? caller: he has an advantage in that he is not associated with romney-care, or anything like that. obama gets a lot of heat from the affordable care act. but it is very similar to the mitt romney health care plan for massachusetts.

if he could get out of the primaries, he would pose a good challenge. host: news from libya, this is the story from "the new york times" this morning. host: also this morning, here is a piece about qtar.

"tiny state, big goals." open quotes current policies are consistent -- open quotes -- open quot host: this is an article from "the new york times" if you are interested in reading that.

mike, who would you like to see jen? -- who would you like to see jen? caller: i would vote for anyone -- who would you like to see jerun? caller: i would like to see anyone from the phone book other than obama. michele bachman has a very compelling case. host: savannah, ga., david, your thoughts. caller: i have a problem with the way the to handle callers. nothing has changed. i have called about this issue before.

you cut off one woman before she could finish her comments. i believe that there is actually no republican that can actually put their record next to this president in any competitive way. michelle bodman? sarah palin lynn? -- michele bachman? sarah palin?that is my commen host: i just wanted -- and a brat -- nebraska, go ahead. caller: mike huckabee, his

philosophy, he or one of his mentors, the entire republican field is amazing. it boggles my mind. only people in the upper 1% would vote republican. americans are starting to wise up. host: the public call to the president, it comes as many schools try to limit state cuts to higher education funding.

host: houston, texas, republican line. who would you like to see for the gop? caller: i am serious about this. we need someone who will not be in the pocket, that no one will try to dog out. the french faction of the nuclear -- the new world order,

miss laura bush. there is stuff that you probably want to do, but you have been there. if you could in your heart, we need you right now miss laura bush. and i would like to see chad pope run for vice president. host: clarence, florida. you are next. caller: the republicans do not have anyone to run. you are talking about donald trump, he will not run because of the duplicitous nature of his personal and business life. fringe candidates, and they have too much baggage. basically they have tim pawlenty and mitt romney.

both of them are not electable. democrats will not have any problems to worry about, there is not a republican that can win. host: from "the washington post -- is morning host: that is the piece from "the washington post" this morning. also, "looking for support for the revenue chief."

host: tallahassee, florida, what do you think this morning? caller: by am not sure that i would be so cavalier about the ladies, they might double-team. i also think that paul ryan and john bolton would be a great combination of money and politics. i think that that would be a really good ticket. i would vote for donald trump.

host: have you voted republican in the past? you are calling on the independent line. caller: i was a reagan democrat, now i am an independent. the democratic party is not my father's party any longer. host: who did you vote for in 2008? caller: i voted for john mccain, but i did not feel good about him. host: do you feel more energized this time around than 2008? caller: i want to try to stay more optimistic, i will put it that way. i am not better off than before obama and the democrats took over the presidency.

food is higher, things are much worse. they are not better. i am looking forward. host: bees, republican line, virginia. caller: i am also looking forward to 2012. people should look at the way that republican governors, we need experience. not a senator or a congressman. we need to see how they have spent the stimulus money. some of them have spent the money in a good way. tim pawlenty in minnesota, they have good politics. when you repairers sewage systems and build water treatment systems, do something structural that helps the well-

being of the citizens, that is a good thing. when you just give out money, i do not think that that is a good thing. i also wanted to say that i think the republicans in congress seem like they're very smart. they seem like they are going to get something done. i am really hopeful. but i am looking forward to 2012. host: we are going to be talking about budget negotiations between house republicans and senate democrats and what the tea party but like to see. senator mark rubio was on fox news sunday yesterday. here is what he had to say about 2012 budget negotiations. >> clearly, it is important. the one that the house has passed, it got more votes than what democrats propose.

how we spend money is important, but how we spend money over the next 60 years is even more important. what we do over the next year will be a strong indicator over how serious we are. host: budget negotiations is the topic that comes up next. host: who do you want to see run ?n 2012 but abou caller: barack obama is obviously the default candidate at this point. if there is a republican that shows the american people, shows me, that he is willing to deal with -- as an example -- general all electric not paying any taxes on their profits, if there is a candidate that comes out and says that we would like corporate disclosure and tax

reforms that includes slashing the tour -- corporate tax rate, tied to the ability to tax the individuals that will benefit from that corporate tax rate drop. of course, some decent, local regulation. a corporation is going to move into spartanburg, south carolina, the people need to know exactly what is coming out with it that corporation. if they mature republican gets the agenda that is pro-american and not anti-corporate, but surely able to control our institutions, letting them work for us instead of the reverse, that republican would have my support. host: coming out, we will talk about the deadline that is looming for the government to keep itself running.

friday. we will be right back. ♪ >> the c-span video library has just one a peabody award for its contribution to history, scholarship, and public life. now one year old, you can watch every program archived since 1987. it is washington, your way. >> throughout the month of april, we will feature the winners of c-span's studentcam competition.

what of winning videos every morning on c-span, just before "washington journal." stream any of the winning videos online at any time at c- span.org. >> you are watching c-span. every morning, "washington journal." connecting you with policymakers and journalists. weekdays, coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights, supreme court or arguments and policy forms in congress. saturday, "communicators," and you can also watch programming any time apple c-span.org. c-span.org.ime at c-span, a public service created

by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with gail russel chaddock, the senior congressional correspondent for "the christian science monitor." open quotes europe: a gambit," that is the headline today. guest: these are as close as any negotiations i have ever seen in congress. a bad thing for my profession and a good thing for the public. host: have they been continuing over the weekend and headed into this week? who is talking? caller: -- guest: right now the appropriations committee is trying to sort out whether or not the figure of $33 billion

was accurate. senate democrats said that it was. the vice-president said that it was. john bowler said he was not convinced. we will have to figure out where the cuts come from underneath that number. that is a very difficult question. senate democrats would like to see the cuts go beyond domestic, non-defense discretionary. republicans say that we have to stick to domestic discretionary. host: let's talk about lines in the sand. house republicans, there are probably a couple of them there. where do they stand? as part of that, people here $61 billion. can you explain those numbers?

guest: it will be eclipsed this week by trillion. the house republicans are releasing their budget for 2012 this week, which claims to save more than $4 trillion. the momentum of that number could sway votes on the other side. to get to your question, $100 billion. when republicans ran to take back the house, $100 billion from what the president wanted to spend. halfway into the fiscal year, the first question was -- cut half of what we said we would. cutting $100 billion from what president obama wanted. what we arelk about

actually spending. it is really $30 billion. at that point, house conservatives are boosted by an 87 member freshman class. you said $100 billion, we said $60 billion, and we want to see the full cut this year. as each month goes by there have been more cuts, even with these temporary measures, to demonstrate even $2 billion in cuts per week. so, here we are. the house passed $61 billion. the senate passed nothing. the compromise appears to be $33 billion. but we do not know. we will see. host: said democrats are saying what? caller: interestingly, they started out from the position of saying that they had already cut

$40 billion from what the president said that he wanted to spend. their position has basically been no new cuts. the fact that they are now talking enthusiastically about $31 billion is huge. host: house republicans are saying what? you have to differ between the conservatives in the republican study committee and leadership? what do they say? caller: what a wonderful question right now. speaker boehner was asked directly about that. he had said it -- no, he is looking for the deepest cut that he can get. might i add to those considering a primary challenge to the tea party members who are not quite the party enough, they

are pushing for a full promise of $61 billion up to $100 billion and more. that is what is important. and more -- it is not just a debate. who would think that it is a rounding error, $30 billion, trivial? let's get this out of the way. let's take what we can and move on to the next issue, the budget for 2012. host: is this a strategic move by house republicans to say paul ryan, we need to be talking about trillions so that we can sway the conservative republicans? guest: i wish that i could tell you. i wish i knew that that was the plan for sure. the timing is about right.

host: paul ryan and is expected to announce more of the details of his plan tomorrow, tuesday. sunday he was on the news shows talking about it, laying out medicare as the heart of his proposal in what he wants to do with that. going forward this week, is there likely to be a seventh continuing resolution? of a stopgap measure while they negotiate something long term? guest: that would be difficult. even with the last continuing resolution, 64 house republicans are saying -- no way. the only reason that it passed then is that you had 185 democrats that supported it. everyone that i spoke to voted for that last continuing

resolution, saying -- speaking of the line in the sand, i will not vote for another short-term resolution. which is tough. we are not going to drop a bill on the floor with only three minutes to look at it. they are not going to cook up something and dump it in your lap. they have got to go forward with this by tuesday night. host: because of the 72 hour rule, they have to put something together by tuesday night. it does not give the senate much time to act. guest: and that is where delaying is hard wired into the coating of the institution. one member that does not like how things are going has the power to slow things down for a

couple of days. host: aides have floated the idea of breaking the 72-hour pledge, but such a move would be risky, given that the rule was offering to the tea party activists, who accused democrats of creating deals behind closed doors. caller: we have got to give more money to the schools and the met -- less money for the wars. now they are saying that teachers cannot have unions. this is really eroding our entire system. firefighters, police, teachers, they are being looked at as if they are some kind of sucking off of the system. it is gutted.

this country is completely down hill. these are the traditional jobs that have served the middle class, the barrier between the lower class and the elite class. when you take away the middle, it was run by the corporate elites. which is fascism. we need to stop the war in the military industrial complex. guest: every time that i talk to democrats about the bottom line in this budget, almost a first issue raised by the people is always education.

that we cannot cut brigitte we cannot cut back on that funding. -- that we cannot cut back on that funding. the other thing that has really interested me, if you look at the votes in the house there are more in the first few months of this house on important issues than in decades. the 87-member freshman class that we've tended to characterize as the tea party class or very conservative class. look at their votes. there is a surprising things. you mentioned police and fire. 30 of those freshmen voted to increase spending for police. i think 24 voted to increase spending for fire. a number of voted to support the national labor relations board. there is some surprising switch

-- is not the modernist. host: maria, a democrat, washington, d.c. caller: they say they want to save medicare and they want to create social security. we all as taxpayers pay to those funds. i feel that the war's is completely -- to use the funds to countries. g.e. does not pay taxes. once they got tons of money, -- the middle class is becoming a class like other countries. obama when send and he at least

-- this country has no money. i think it is ridiculous. people are not working. you go to other countries. manufacturing -- we're privatizing the waters and the utility and the basic needs for the humans, for everyone. host: we got your point. guest: where does were spending fit into a context that is focused on cuts? especially as we appear to have expanded into a third war, in libya. could drag on for some time -- this could drag on for some time. the main support comes from

republicans. democrats that opposed the war do not have an interest in embarrassing the president who is about to announce running for a second term. it is not the sharp test eds anti-war movement we have seen in past wars -- is strongly bipartisan at this point. it will be difficult for point that you're making. to drastically cut defense spending, we need that to support the middle class. you're not going to see that argument. in the next two years in the run-up to this election. host: ""the wall street journal ," a front-page story. there is more details about what this will include. on taxes,, some conservatives expect a temporary tax change that will let u.s. multinationals bring home as

at aas $1 trillion greatly reduced tax rate. they expect a fundamental overhaul of the tax system. host: we will go to a republican in boston. caller: i think if you look over this past decade, both republican and democrats have placed a tremendous amount of debt on the backs of old people and young people in this country. i think funding for any program, social, will be dramatically decreased not because of republicans or democrats but

because of the markets. it is low on its way to collapsing. there is nothing that hurts the middle class more than the collapse of the purchasing power. there is no coincidence that a collapse from purchasing power and that wars are breaking out. look for continued collapse of the purchasing power of the dollar. host: do you have any thoughts? guest: it is a tout -- a subtext everything going on now. what really is coming out this week is a debate you can cut on every possible line. it is not about age. the cuts in social security and medicare and medicaid, -- let me rephrase that. republicans would say it is not cuts. is reducing the rates of growth.

changes in medicare and medicaid and social security. there will be a share from older people to a younger people. they have a difficult job prospects and are bearing the brunt of this. it is a very big question. it is hard to imagine the scope of change on capitol hill right now. every previous budget cycle has involved talking about investments and growth and arguing about the point i stumbled over. an increase that is left really a cut? what we're talking about now is not that issue. there are deep cuts that affect the whole notion of what our government is and does. go back to a new deal debate. we have not had one on this level since the 1960's. but this one is more severe.

host: we have a tweet. host: after the end of this week, if there is an agreement over funding for the rest of this fiscal year, what happens next? guest: you would think that when the main event of this event is what happened on friday, when funding for the fiscal year runs out, will the government shut down? will the consequence they predict who will be out of work? this is an easy discussion, what to do with fiscal year spending. the hard one is coming up with the budget for 2012, which goes into entitlement spending. traditionally, these third rails of american politics. but that is not even the toughest issue.

the toughest issue is what to do when the spending bumps up against the debt limit. is the issue that so many republicans ran on. "i will not raise this debt limit." "this is as high as it will ever be." that is what i ran on. they have every incentive in the world to stick to what they said they would do. that creates a dramatic situation. this is only one of three. the second one is harder. host: ohio, an independent caller. caller: i have a comment and a question. i'm trying to fall this going on. host: join the club --

-- guest: join the club. caller: the senate is not agreeing in passing anything. i'm wondering, are they going to be able to get their act together and pass this to move on to the next to its big steps they have to take care of? up.ill hang n host: before you do, as an independent, what does this do for you prove it was rethinking as you look to 2012 and have you may vote over this issue? caller: we have a severe problem, especially with this debbt. the only ones who seem serious are the republicans. they are haggling over something that the democratic

house senate and white house should have taken care of last year. the push this problem on to the republicans of this year. it seems like everyone just keeps pointing at the republicans. i cannot see where the senate is attempting to get anything done whatsoever. they keep pointing fingers. they peer down what republicans want. they are not saying what they are for cutting. they are not saying what they are willing to cut. host: let me get your reaction to this. this is from "the washington post." this is an editorial. you're dealing with environmental protection agency and planned parenthood. they have to a tangential relationship to a deficit-

cutting. at a legitimate basis for holding the government hostage. -- not a legitimate basis for holding the government hostage. what do you think? caller: i would like to know what compromises they have made. what are they? host: we will talk to gail about that. guest: they are letting the other side come forward and then the lead. that is how the majority's switched in the last two campaign cycles. republicans said no to everything that the democrats said in the last campaign cycle. democrats -- and so i think i

just repeated myself. host: vice versa. guest: are things now so serious that the president will take a hit for not taking more leadership on the cut side. senate democrats will take a hit for not engaging republicans on foot -- on friday, they passed an unusual bill still have no affect, a symbolic attempt to make their point. the bill said if the senate does not act on our spending bill for fiscal year 2011 by the sweet, -- by this week, our bill will have deemed to have pass. that is foolish on one level. it would require the senate to agree, which was not going to happen. it was away to say, we're doing something and they are not.

both sides are watching closely how the public response to this. does the public still think that cutting deficits and debt is important? is a more important than the possibility of losing programs they value profit that is the dialogue that is going on at this point. but the waiting has to end on friday. you either agree or not. the government shuts down or it does not. i think this one will. host: we have another twitter comment. chicago, matt, a democrat, your next. -- you are next. caller: it appears we have a

race to the bottom. $30 billion cut here and $60 ,illion ko'd here and the house gop do not want to talk about what they want to cut. the only thing i would say as a democrats, i would say that things need to be cut. as your guest said, this is a debate that we're having that we probably have not had in 40, 50 years. i would say to my conservative friends, when the government's invests money, spending money, it is not a bad thing. how do you think the highway system came here? how many jobs did the highway system creates?

how many -- how much money did the government spend on putting the stuff in place to fit i can go on my pc and find out news from around the world. that did not drop out of the sky. that was a result of investment spending. all spending is not a bad thing. that is the trouble i get when i listen to my friends on the other side. thank you for your show. it has been good. guest: 80 an important point. what is the difference between an investment and waste, fraud, and reduced profit that is what it comes down to. republicans are trying to couch their changes as, let's look were there is waste. the government accountability office came out with a report that said there is $100 billion in programs in government that

could be halved, most republicans jumped on that and said this is where we could get some cuts. we don't have to cut into critical investments at this point. programs waste, fraud is another's critical investment. take a small example. speaker boehner in a speech last week defended the vouchers for d.c. it is a program that democrats got rid of. it was important to republicans to see education reform as links to choice for parents, including funds to go into a parochial school. democrats said, what is the evidence that parochial schools do better than d.c. public schools put it to kids see gains in improvements that are significantly that is a factual

debate. what is the evidence of it i think you'll see that on a whole range of issues. it is not enough to say it is waste, fruits -- fraud, and abuse. on the house side, you have committees that are now focused on a piece by piece going through government spending with lawmakers raising questions and bring in witnesses to answer that question. is it critical or is it not? host: we have a tweet from gary . host: does go to john, a republican in florida. you're next. caller: i agree with what the person just tweeted in. republican stock about making cuts. we hear from the left -- republicans talk about making

cuts. it is to the point where how they play the race card. we have to put more into education in this country. we rank near the bottom. money is not the issue. look at all schools. they operate most on a shoestring budget. they produce kids that are more than prepared for the upper level education. we need across-the-board cuts, probably 20% and a flat tax. host: is that part of the discussion? guest: absolutely. republicans were trying to figure out what the plan was. of the votes said let's cut $61 billion. but what to cut another $22 billion in across-the-board cuts.

some did not support that. they did not like an across-the- board concept. they thought it was mindless. are some things more important than others. you cannot just do it with a meat cleaver. have to do it with a scalpel. host: we have another tweet from maverick. guest: a computer service. that is a very big issue. i remember in the 9/11 commission, one of the discoveries was the fbi did not have search capacities on their computers. they have been working at this for years to improve this. computers -- that is not like high point of the government in its current form. i think you should send that letter to your member of congress and urged all of your friends to do the same.

there is a great savings if the government can figure out computer technologies. host: president obama sent out an e-mail announcing he is running for reelection. at do you think any impact that would have on this week's budget -- what do you think impact that would have on this week's budget discussion? guest: and think the president is missing on action, that he did not embrace the need to make budget cuts. his budget does not go far enough and includes trillions. is focused on the campaign suggest he will not be there at all. for democrats, the idea that their best spokesman will be using the bully pulpit to make a case for government. why we need it, what is a critical investment?

that can help the kind of case they are trying to make back here. host: sandra, an independent caller. caller: what happened to $30 million that was set aside for the orphan program that they never used but they still love -- $30 million. -- $13 million. i would like to also know -- michele bachmann has a loophole in the tax were surely pays $100 a month for property -- where she only pays $100 a month for property. what ever happened to the tax break for all the rich when their houses get washed away and everything else. we continually repeat to use

that funding, to give it to them, and yet, we're hurting ourselves. i watched john stossel and he was talking about that. we need to find out why. guest: i do not know the specifics of the first case you mentioned. what was the expenditure? host: she is not with us. guest: any detail like that, getting this kind of tax break, it is not fair. let's fast-forward to a campaign ad for 2012. -- i did not catch what you said the first time. host: we will move onto a democrat in buffalo. we are with gail russell chaddock with the "christian science monitor." caller: i appreciate everything i get from watching c-span. if we follow the present cost

planned for the budget, and his executive plant -- if we follow the president's plan for the budget, and just give it a chance, so the crisis that may be lower-class people or people who are citizens and taxpayers and who would love to have an opportunity to be involved and to help create, but there stifled because of all kinds of other conditions around them that to not allow them to get there. and limited in my educational background. i am a living citizen and a taxpayer and a voter. guest: that is a nice set of issues. the question you raised about what stifles growth, i think you'll see more specific discussion in congress that in

recent memory. what appears to be supporting growth, spending more money, in fact is not. there are certain regulations that are stifling growth. some small-business owners and entrepreneurs are asking the question, you are not hiring and you're not growing, why? what can the government do to change that? there is nothing more respectful than a real congressional debate. one of the criticism that is made of congress is that it has not been having robust debates. there were not substantive back- and-forth so the american people can have an idea about what he's ideas do and why they're

important. i think that would benefit both sides. this would be good for the president -- >> budget. there are alternatives. host: a couple more phone calls. only, md. -- olney, maryland. caller: i am an american citizen. everybody calls in and talks about the democratic views. if they are republican or a middle of the road to independence, they talk about conservative or liberal views. we need to talk about american views. we have increased the size by over 21 2 million people. what to these people do -- but over 200 million people. host: let's take the point, the

size of the federal government. guest: one of the interesting things is how many independent contractors there are. doingf the research we're is what happened to the government -- if the government jets down? for many -- if the government shuts down. it kind of already has. people are uncertain about what spending levels will be. contracts have been held up, in some cases, for six months. so what is the government prove it is the net worth -- remember when the government went lean and mean in previous administrations to the patent contract out the work, so that the government is not just those people. it is also the contractors who are picking up the -- they are not creating jobs in the

uncertain climate. host: you were talking about the 87 republican freshmen and what we might not know about them. you're writing a piece that is coming up next week in the "christian science monitor." guest: i was trying to give insights. i campaigned with some of them to see how the world had changed. this is not a monolith, this class. they have very diverse views, even in terms of how they would cut and span. members voted to increase spending for police and four firemen, who preserved funny in the department of education, department of energy, rather, for green programs. any time you hear something that begins the freshmen are, or even the tea party is, even the

tea party is not a monolith. "war and peace."you had the leading freshman at loggerheads as to whether not he should sustain a war in libya. that would be senator rubio. get out and really, that would be senator rand paul. host: you can go to "christian science monitor" website. you'll be able to find gail's writing there. thank you. coming up, i want to shoot a tweet from our guests coming up. in about 45 minutes, looking for to discussing the new survey on land deals -- millennials. that will be in our last hour of

"washington journal." we have a husband and wife who have written a new book about their personal stories covering wars. this is the israeli and palestinian conflict. we'll talk about the mideast and northern africa uprisings, as well. we will be right back. >> meet one of the top winners in the student camera competition. we were asked to produce a video to help them better understand the role of federal government. today we go to fairfax, va., to talk to one of our winners. he is a senior at fairfax academy. tell me, what led you to create a documentary on the u.s. economy? >> i was given the assignment and fairfax, to make a documentary for c-span's contest. when i looked at the prompt for the contest, i decided to focus

on a topic that i wanted to learn more about. i have been hearing some much of the economy in the news for the past year. i wanted to get a better understanding about where we are as a country. >> have you been impacted by the u.s. economy? >> we have money invested in stocks and bonds. when the recession hit, we basically lost all the money these investments have gained over the years. we're cutting back on expenses to try to save money. we returned the cable box for tv. we cut back on vacations. my parents were able to refinance their home. this was another way for us to save money. >> in your documentary, you said the government now stop -- messed up. >> federal reserve had these policies are when it came to giving out loans.

lot of the people went into debt and could not pay back the banks. then the banks cannot pay back their debts to other companies. it becomes a big mess. from what i hear in the news, it sounds like the u.s. economy is spending. there are issues with unemployment and inflation. we have recover from some problems caused by the recession. >> you interviewed and economic professor. >> i wanted to interview somebody who knows what they are talking about. not that my father does not know what he is talking about. i want the summit who could teach me what is going on. the george mason university is near my house. there are a bunch of economics professor. who knows more about the economy than economics professor?

he was the first to respond and so i interviewed him. >> what are your concerns? >> to pay off these debts the with accumulated from things like the stimulus package. the economy declines and improves, but the government could hurt in the long run. >> what did you learn from warning on this document? >> i learned a lot. i learned about the record low interest rates. i kind of got a better idea on the economic crisis. i learned what about the financial situation of my family. status could disappear on the stock market. >> thank you for talking with us today. >> no problem. nathan's a portion of

documented. >> we were fortunate we were able to qualify for a good loan rate because we of good credit. we always pay their credit bills off every month. we try not to carry much debt. lot of people have a hard time getting loans, especially now because after the mortgage crisis, the government clamped down and the investors are much are cautious about lending money. so there are criteria for making loans and they're much tougher than before. >> banks aren't lending up the money as much as we would like them to. the reason that is the case is part because they are afraid to do business. partly because they are of great interest rates -- >> people probably cannot get the kind of loans they want to

get. maybe they are going in the opposite direction. >> you can see this entire video and all the documentary's at studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have the co-author of the new books, "this burning land." his wife, jennifer griffin, the co-author of this book, as well. greg, mr. with you. let's start with what is really best palestinian conflict continues today. guest: it has been going on for six decades. tenures ago, they were close to an agreement. but they have worked backwards

-- 10 years ago, they were close to an agreement. we wanted to emphasize how they dug a deeper hole for themselves. hamas is in control of gaza. relish solomons have expanded from 100,000 to 300,000 today so. a lot of the problems have multiplied and become even larger. that is one thing we wanted to emphasize. it's a deepening of the conflict. >> this includes your personal stories. you have live there. you have raised two small children. you there from 1999 to 2007. you said that israel has a thriving economy. but they cannot solve this problem. guest: one reason we wrote this book is we felt that there is a lot of talk in washington if we

could just give back to the peace process. we always hear, if we just can go back to the peace process and get the israelis and palestinians talking as they did when you talk been -- itzyak rabin was on the scene. during the time we live there, the psychological landscape between the israelis and palestinians changed to such a degree. you need to come at the problem with a new perspective as to how both sides were changed. >> -- host: what did they not understand about the conflict that you think they should understand, given that you were on the ground? guest: the way these issues have become more difficult.

the economies were very much integrated. israelis and palestinians could travel back and forth. every day, palestinians were like commuters. they would come to work in israel and go home at the end of the day. israel is would go to the west bank. there was economic integration to a degree. the kinds of segregation and divisions have become much more permanent and locked in place. these will be hard to reverse. you just cannot go back a decade and dust off the old plan. host: when you first arrive, was it that sparked the decline t three? there? guest: the spark that unleashed a lot of built up anger and frustration that the peace process had not gone as the

palestinians and israel is had hoped. there was frustration on the palestinian side. we described in the first chapter or the first deaths on the temple mount bacchant september of 2000. it is not that that's part or cause the intifada. but we bring to in this chapter is the back start of what made him go there that day. we have interviews and stories and the back story behind what motivated him to go there that day. and then everything that unfolded from that. you have to understand those initial days. greg is fond of saying it just takes a small spark in the middle east. look at what is happening in tunis. man set himself on fire. now you have a revolution in libya. there was a human rights activist who had been arrested in those early days and that is

what sparked the protests. all it takes to the middle east is a spark. our point is that you cannot ignore the israeli-palestinian conflict. it may not be a front burner issue right now. you need to understand this conflict. host: you do need to understand what it means to both sides. do you think that is important? guest: absolute. will you have is the holiest destroyedjudea saism twice. and now you have one of the most important shrines in islam built on top of that. ariel sharon went up there to walk around. he did not go into the religious shrine. but walking around in flamed muslim passions. jews pray the western wall.

that is the most explosive piece of real estate in the entire middle east. guest: you have to understand how layered it is and the proximity and also how small the place is. we tried to paint the picture in the book. we take the leader there on that day when aerial shot walked onto the temple mount. i was there. the next day, friday prayers. jews were praying at the western wall. i did not understand that how on top of each other the mosque and worthy jews were praying. there is a beautiful picture. the last picture. it is in the old city. it shows an arab and a jewish worshiper passing each other in

the old city. the above cannot see each other. they are covered. it is and amazing fatah. it symbolizes so much. walking down this narrow streets, streets that have been there since jesus walked the same path. there faces are covered and they do not see each other. host: fast for to today. do the palestinians -- fast forward to today. this is the holiest offer the palestinians. israel might take it away. guest: absolutely. this is where diplomacy will have to comment. you have to be creative. there were notions that the mosque and the religious compound that had been there for 1300 years would remain in muslim hands. but that the ground below it be

in jewish hands. talking about belowground would have one sovereign and above ground would have another sovereign. you're going to have to come up with some very creative solutions. this is the one spot for an israeli leader to relinquish sovereignty of the holiest site .n judea's aism this is a difficult thing for any politician. host: you conducted a lot interviews while you live there. you got personal stories down to the specifics of this conflict. ,'m wondering from both of you is the end goal of statehood more important, or is the site? guest: it depends for whom you're talking about. i think what we're hearing now is interesting.

in recent days, there has been talked about palestinians going for a vote about palestinian statehood. that will force israel's hand. have shimon peres -- you have the shimon peres coming to the white house tomorrow. israel is concerned if the palestinians and go to a vote at the u.n. general assembly, that they will overnight have a state and if certain things are not discussed, that is going to put this conflict and take a turn that many israelis are concerned about. president bush was the first american president to declare that two states are two peoples was the goal of u.s. policy and that the palestinians deserve a state. that was a major step forward. we have seen so much movement.

sometimes looks like the israelis and palestinians are locked in a tight race. it's been going on for ever. there is a lot going on. you need to predict what we try to do -- this is a very -- we have to introduce you to characters on both sides of the conflict. you can actually crossed the front lines on any given day and report from both sides of the conflict on the same day. that is what we wanted to show. through the eyes of these characters that we have met, what are the issues, what drives them to fit what motivates them prove it will be the difficult issues ahead? guest: there are many good people on both sides and we profile many of them in the book who want peace. it is reason not to give up hope. tour elements that have a vested

interest in keeping the conflict alive. i would point to hamas, who does not want to negotiate. this makes their argument and their cause stronger, that israel should be destroyed. there are groups of settlers in the west bank who would like -- who believe that time is on their side. the more these settlements will become fixtures as part of connected to israel, and therefore they have a greater chance of remaining in place. host: want to move on to north africa. what impacts of those situations in libya had there? guest: the biggest impact was the change in egypt. the change -- the potential change of the government or the change of the government and the

potential change of the relationship between egypt and israel and one thing in need to understand disease how nervous israel is our right now about what is going on around them, because this is a cataclysmic change we're seeing appear we have had the same families in power in all these arab states. one interesting point is that for the first time in the history of the middle east, you're not hearing israel blamed for all the problems in the arab capitals. they are not turning around and the leaders are not able to say all their problems are because of the conflict not being solved. that is an interesting development. the situation in egypt is important for israel. there is the border between gaza and egypt. if the egyptians -- if the new egyptian government does not monitor that border, that is

going to destabilize things in a serious way. i would say israelis are holding their breath as to the changes going on around them. they do not know about the regime in syria. would be a huge change with regards to hezbollah -- that would be a huge change. all eyes right now on these other conflicts and it is not clear how the dust will settle. host: this is a headline from times."the new york what role of a plane in the middle east -- what role are they playing in the middle east? guest: it has been extraordinary what qatar has done. al jazeera has played a role in

the arab world. they have the the u.s. military presence. they have decided that for many -- they have contributed to an opening of discussion and dialogue in the arab world. it is an important thing. they have also avoided being involved in the unrest that you've seen elsewhere. host: we're talking about co- authors of this new book. we're talking about the new book and also the unrest in the middle east and northern africa. mike is a democrat. are you there? oops. i think we'll have to wait to see who else calls and. in.to see who else calls an

caller: you folks are extremely knowledgeable and i appreciate your time. what i like to know and i've been trying to find out, where is -- need the palestinians -- would need another hanan. was an excellent representative. we need her. guest: she's still very prominent in palestinian society, but less so on the international stage. she was a leading spokesperson in the 1990's. articulate, very persuasive. she was in some palestinian cabinets. have some friction with some of the other leaders and not a

front-line political figure right now. but involved in developing education programs. she has a nonprofit that she runs. she still very active, but you're not hearing her as the spokesperson. she was a powerful spokesperson. host: -- guest: she felt -- she and falling-out what the arafat regime and many of his cronies who took over afterwards. she was not in a good position with them. she would have felt the intifada did not serve the violent side -- it did not serve the larger cause. she is a woman of principle and i think she is funny she's better served working on women's issues in the palestinian area. tom, go ahead.

are you with us? you are both back here in washington now. let's talk about what you're doing. guest: i worked for fox news at the pentagon. i was in afghanistan if you weeks back. that is what we're doing. one thing we don't have a chance to talk about, the book talks about our personal life. working for two different news organizations in a tense time and also raising two small children. i gave birth to two daughters while we were living in israel. there were certain times when i would go to work with a flak jacket and a breast pump because i was nursing at the time. our girls were born in jerusalem. our second daughter was born on the eve of the iraq invasion.

i checked into the hospital and they give us a certificate for a gas mask tent the babies. adults are caring around gas masks for fear that saddam hussein would fire chemical weapons. that says so much about the psychology of the conflict. we say it is no exaggeration to say on the day they are born, israelis begin preparing for war. host: you are at npr. guest: i worked on the "addition" -- morning edition" program. host: our caller, tom, is back. caller: how is it going this morning? because of the uprising in

africa, why do you think the uprising is so severe now? due to american change and status with the president and everything? give me your notation on by the uprising there in africa and it seems to have been an uprising in the united states. guest: i believe you are referring to the north african countries that have exploded companies, libya, and egypt. something that has caught people by surprise. what you see in places that are frozen in time or the have one autocratic leader, there is not an allegory venue to practice any kind of normal politics where there are -- the views are suppressed. you can take one incident and things will explode.

we mentioned this earlier with the episode in tunisia. someone was abuse by police and this touched this off. this is percolating under the surface. as we a scene, it happened in half a dozen countries at least. guest: think also it is the advent of social media and the internet. a lot of these countries -- it was popular for these rulers and tyrants to keep their people separated from the outside world. you could keep them from knowing what was going on. that is impossible now in the age of the internet. greg mentioned the world with al jazeera in the middle east. qatar funded the station -- the satellite station that essentially was the spark for the revolution a decade ago. americans don't understand the role but al jazeera has played in the middle east. we have heard criticism of al

jazeera during the early parts of the iraq invasion. there were seen as being anti- american. there were chandra -- there were challenging all the leaders. that decade of freedom of information and speech and freedom of speech -- and freedom of the press, that was revolutionary. having access to twitter and facebook -- it was when one person said himself on fire, it was people in syria who saw what was going on and said, i want to be a part of this. this is the genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. this is the biggest change in the middle east since the end of the ottoman empire at the end of i.rld war r host: let's go to georgia on the

democratic line, joan. caller: do you believe that the people of north africa and the middle east are still optimistic about how the obama administration will handle things put he had a great opportunity at the beginning because he had some -- the last thing goes back to what you have been talking about with israel and the palestinians. the issue of water and water rights and how that plays. thank you. guest: i will answer the first question. if we think back, president obama went to cairo in june of 2009. he had been in office six months or so. he delivered a very big speech about the need for more open democratic arab world. it is not a coincidence. there was a lot of hope that things might change. i don't know that anyone thought

it would come so dramatically and as fast as we have seen it. he was seen as inspiration. it is gone tricky. president obama has found you have this often difficult choice between u.s. values and u.s. strategic interests. at times, they can conflict. i think the president's -- people in this part of the middle east and north africa do look to the united states. they are kind of wondering, would get full support to democratic opponents but does that mean military support? will we stand back of the obama administration is still figuring out its policies. people have the same issues. guest: in addition to president obama's speech in cairo, you have to go back to condoleezza rice who gave a symbol speech in cairo, talking about how u.s.

policy in the millie's has long favored stability over democracy. she stated that the new doctrine of the bush administration was that they would favor democracy in these countries. there was a point of time where mixed signals were sent to democratic activists in these countries, the arab countries and capitals. the groundwork for what we're seeing as a series of revolutions was laid during the bush administration and fall about a speech by president obama. now i think what we're seeing from the white house and state department and pentagon is the that i don't think anyone believes they can control what is going on in the middle east right now. they are trying to remain engaged in a way that the democratic movement emerges from this period of tumult, that the u.s. will be seen as a friendly player who wants to help and not

hinder what is going on. more host:, an independent caller from new york. -- mark, an independent caller. caller: much influence to the united states have in these people fighting for their freedom? what do you think that president obama decided to help them and go against allies that had been there for years and years, who have been suppressing the extreme islamists? now those leaders are out and you don't know what we'll have. guest: i was there for the first gulf war when the iraqis were pushed out of kuwait. it was overwhelming support for america. america was seen as the one country that could do something. there was pro-american graffiti on the walls of the embassy in kuwait. to give you a sense of the

steam -- what esteem americans were held at the time. i think you've seen a waning of american influence and mixed signals. u.s.-supported some of these leaders who were unpopular. there was always a sense of a choice between an autocratic leaders like mubarak in egypt or islam as extremists. it has gotten very hard, for the u.s. to make clear its position. i will say that i think this administration -- if this hadn't administration -- but this administration had decided to back the bar, he would still be in power.

hi think lingering in the state department and in the white house's-was the lack of intervention that occurred when the iranian people tried to interfere effused back and they were pretty well squashed by the iranian regime. i think you have to look at european interests. and it was really the french and the british wanted an ally as they go to go in and do something against gaddafi. there were people let the pentagon advising against this. each country has been a case by case basis. i think what the administration has realized is that this is a jeanie des you cannot put back in the bottle.

trying tomply shepherd this process as best they can, even though it is likely to be claimed as the regime. host: we are talking to jennifer crittendon, greg myre, husband and wife team. they understand you were just talking to secretary gates. guest: yes, secretary gates has a long history and relishes it with libya because he was debbie director of the cia -- deputy director of the cia, in the 1980's. he was definitely trying to caution against regime change in libya because he saw how difficult it was.

one of the firm lines he has drawn is no grown troops in an african or middle eastern country. and he also cautioned the of the day on capitol hill that regime change often takes 10 years, as we have seen in iraq. host: we will go to andrew in florida. caller: i just want to make a quick comment about educational causes and university in the states. with the news media, how is it possible to be a more current events? when you came back to the states and went to a friend -- went to friends and family and tried to describe the situation,

the older generations -- was in the older generations or the denver generations that could not complete? guest: i actually think that this book, which really gives you an updated look at the israeli conflict would be great in conference. -- in classrooms. [laughter] there are many people who have followed this conflict for a long time and it answers a lot of key questions. my experience, after going to the pentagon and i have spoken to a lot of military personnel,

i am amazed at how much americans know about the world economic -- the world that we've been -- the world that we live in as a result of iraq and afghanistan. we have had in nearly 1.5 million people who have served in the last decade and they come back with a lawrence of arabia attitude toward the middle east. guest: i will make one little counterpoint there. there are fewer american journalist based in the released today than there were on 9/11. that has to do with the economics of newspapers and television, but it is still a interesting fact -- an interesting fact based on the

drug involvement of the last decade. host: can you speak to the cost of having you in israel and palestine? guest: you have an office there and you need people to support you there. you needed translators and an armored car. host: security? guest: not really, we needed an armored car and five decades. guest: in iraq and afghanistan you paper mobley $1,000 per day for security surrounding them. guest: where we were people did not necessarily always want our opinions, but in iraq and afghanistan, they targeted you. phone.let's go to the

a call from maryland. caller: i read j-post and here ts each morning. i am surprised at how diverse the views are held even by his release. they seem to have a broader and more diverse discussion that we often have here. i wonder if you have gotten into your broken in to both sides of the discussion even happening in israel. guest: we absolutely do. the point you made it is a verbatim what we have said many times.

the paper you mentioned is a very liberal newspaper and a very good one. jay post is on the conservative side in israel, but they both have very good articles, discussions, and opinion pieces. it did strike aus that the daily discussion in israel is often lacking here in the u.s.. you are looking at the right sources and getting a range of opinions. had see thosewe hav kind of debate secure the u.s. guest: the characters that we introduce you to are part of that society that are not going along with the flow.

there is one person who goes around the west bank and monitors the settlements and the expansion of settlements. on the palestinian side, we have with the military units, the paramilitary units during the intifada. there was a point at which he felt that the intifada had failed. these are events that are documented in the characters that we introduce you to in the book. host: today in the open court wall street journal" --

guest: what we see in lebanon, which is always a complicated and confusing story, affectively, a hezbollah is in control of the government there. they have had elections. the prime minister is aligned with hezbollah there. i was surprised to see this headline commission are now as opposed to a couple of months ago when his blood got in control of the government. the u.s. -- when hezbollah got in control of the government. the u.s. is a little concerned about where it could go if we send arms to hezbollah. we witnessed two wars, one in

1996 and another in 2006, where a of hezbollah and israel were fighting across that border. guest: back in 2006, and we have a chapter in the book about this, about the war between israel and hezbollah, we spent 34 days on the border documenting the katisha katyusha -- the katish fighters. we wanted to beef up the strength of the lebanese government. what you are seeing is they are finally catching of to the political changes that are happening on the ground. host: a man wearing an explosive

bolts was arrested as he tried to enter the offices of the largest opposition group. how does that factor into the whole situation in the mideast? guest: and jordan is like all of now of the country's right n surrounding israel. normally, you have the king of jordan and a monarchy there. in the countries that are facing protests, the monarchies and seemed to be doing a and better than other families that have held onto power in a tyrannical way. they have managed to hold things together. there have been protests, but things have been mild compared to some of the other capitals. the problem with jordan is that there is a town in jordan that is very radical.

your murder -- you remember how zarqawi, who was one of the leaders the we-he was a leader for al qaeda. there are tensions between protestors, a radical islamists , and those trying to power, such as the king. host: let's go back to phone calls. caller: as long as the leaders

are planning a hard ball, there is no peace. people go on and on forever. my other point, i am very concerned -- and the world, not just the u.s. should be concerned. they have brought 150,000 army mercenaries. he said he will release them to europe as soon as he is done with them. he is paying them $300 for each person they killed. guest: we have certainly heard a

lot about these mercenaries to be annoyed. it is not clear surely how extensive their role is. guest: i have to jump in there. host: go ahead. guest: in terms of the mercenaries, they're the ones protecting him and it is the reason he is holding on to the capitol right now i have heard reports about him and i do not think we know what will happen if the fighting ends in libya. but i can tell you about an interesting town in eastern libya that is well documented, a radical town that should be watched carefully. that is where we are covering the surge in iraq.

confound all of the paperwork of the suicide bombers that were designating themselves in iraq. they found the 19% of them came from one village, one town in libya. the u.s. military did not know why. my colleague from "newsweek" went to darna a few years ago and he documented the very anti- american an atmosphere and how they were recruiting in this town. these are things that have to be wise -- how to be watched. if libya turns into basically a failed regime, that is a very dangerous situation.

host: since you just got back from africa, what you to comment on this headline -- and guest: this is an incredibly, incendiary situation. you have this pastor in florida who has taken it upon himself to burn the grant. it is a very incendiary thing to do. it has left to -- led to the death of several civilians killed by a raging mob two days ago. it is a very hard situation and it is hard to understand how this pastor in florida can justify burning the karan when we have more than 100,000 troops in afghanistan and iraq. host: the book is called

"disburdening lead." thank you -- "the this burning land." thank you for joining us. here is a news update from c- span radio. >> it is 17 past the hour. nato says the u.s. military is pulling its warplanes from the frontline nations today and shifting to a support role in the libyan conflict. britain, france and other nato allies will provide the fighter jets. meanwhile, former president clinton says the obama administration should consider farming of the libyan rebels. he added that he was just speaking for himself, but said that he would not dismiss that option. and in this video, greek authorities reported that fighter jets were scrambled,

this folly in a bomb threat while a plane was on his way to egypt. this court of the plane to athens international airport. the plane was carrying 213 people and a bomb threat was made in a telephone call to a british company. no further details were available. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> to live on the communicators, fcc commissioner michael copps on the proposed merger. >> the thing that disturbs me is that this sucks the oxygen out of so many issues pending before the fcc. this affects so much of what we're doing. >> debt on the communicator's on c-span2. policy's been on twitter.

you can also join our,ization -- our conversation. get started at twitter.com/c- span. "washington journal" continues. host: john della volpe is here to talk about a new poll out conducted recently. before we start talking about these results, let me let our viewers know -- we are going to changeup our fall mind a little bit this morning so we can hear from these millennial. if your age 18 to 29, you have

your own line. president obama's job approval rating with these 18 to 29 year- old groups, 55% approved, 43% disapprove. college student, 60 percent approve, 38% disapprove. guest: it is incredibly important that we begin to look at how the money will generation is fair and in 2012. in 2008, if not for young people, i daresay that hillary clinton and not barack obama would be president right down. from the first days of the iowa caucus all the way through the general election, young people supported obama by a minimum of two to one. in some cases 5 to 1.

to the extent that they are a swing vote, that gives hope to several other republican candidates. host: compare those numbers, though. , 60% of themve approve of obama right now. compare those numbers. guest: this is the first time in four polls that we have conducted that the numbers have increased and decreased over the last four months of relative to president obama's standing. in november 2009, his approval was at 60%. in three subsequent surveys id has been on a decline.

we have seen nine percentage points fall on college campuses. this generation is beginning to pay attention to politics again and it is open to president obama's reelection messages. but also, it is open to what the republican candidates have to say as well. host: fast-forward to 2012. what of the resounding issues of the campaign is war. how you think the labels will react? guest: that is difficult based on what this situation is like in libya, afghanistan, etc. 54% said the economy is the number one issue facing them at this point. the economy, at this point, drums all other issues in the hearts and minds of young americans.

the when you get to approval ratings, people are far less likely to give positive reviews -- young people are far less likely to give positive reviews that older americans. they are beginning to approve of him personally and beginning a to have a bit more confidence, but i think they are more circumspect of his handling of the election. host: when you look at social media verses on the ground activists, door-to-door types of campaigning, where do millennial spaull? what do they like to see? guest: they prefer and believe that it is more effective to organize themselves using social media tools, which includes facebook, twitter, youtube, blogs, etcetera.

they are more likely to believe that online after his seat -- efficacy is more effective than traditional. host: what does this mean on the republican side and how they tried to get that -- get some of the votes for the 18 to 29-year- old age bracket. guest: i do not think you get votes based on twitter or facebook. you need to motivate people. you are able to go -- mobilize them through the use of social media. this is the 19th survey that we have released. before a one -- that it started

well before anyone heard of facebook. we need to communicate with baliles because of the efforts and vehicles known as social from work or social media. host: what is the methodology behind your polling? guest: the methodology has evolved. we collect over 3000 interviews with 18 to 29-year-old. the actual interviews are conducted on line over the internet in in both english as well as spanish. host: let's go to joseph in brooklyn. caller: that is exactly what i was calling about. it seems, after so many years

because their vote or three -- there were three major channels end if the president spoke, ribordy watched it and talked about it. and for a long time anything like that was the most boring thing socially. no one paid attention to it for years. the massive corruption has gone number of people like me to pay attention to it on the internet and difference new site. -- news sites. i think where you said is close to the key thing. when the message is right, young people have a good sense of the message. if people try to pull the wool , i think it willakom

be very difficult to pull one over on them. guest: a couple of points that joseph phrases. what is, i was not necessarily surprised at the significant turnaround in the 2006 and 2008 elections. young americans care about their community and their country. in this survey that was released last week, 57% of college students are quite active in volunteering for community service. one-third are involved. about the state of politics and the state of the u.s. in the rest of the world. what is necessary, though, is to respect them. if you respect and empower them, they will vote.

host: when it comes to the view of public service, many think that community service is honorable, but just 36% think running for office is honorable. guest: that is still very discouraging, especially from our perch. our mission is to connect young people with politics and public service. when you look back at the 19 to raise that we have conducted, two-thirds, 54% of young people do not trust the government all the time or most the time. and 11 years later, unfortunately, it is still the same. it is difficult for people to want to run for office if they

do not see the office as hon. or do not see it as a trust for the occupation. host: john, you are on the air. caller: i was wondering how these surveys and polls were correlated from state to state and if you can take the obstructionists -- abstractions differing from them. guest: when you're talking about the reporting as of president obama, he does significantly better in the midwest. there are also some significant differences based on gender and other things. we typically do not break it down on a state-by-state basis. we do it by region.

host: tom, what do you think of this new poll out showing favorable numbers for president obama? caller: i do not think it is correct. i think we need to live by our constitution. we do not enforce our laws anymore. we let the government of what all over the american people. we are invaded every day by people who do not even belong here. they are ruining our economy. host: derek in clinton, ossipee. -- mississippi. caller: it seems like a young voters care more about things like a rights and abortion and women's rights and things like that. -- like gay-rights and abortion and women's rights and things like that. host: is it true that younger

people tend to be more liberal? guest: it is, but it is incredibly important to understand that this generation is not a monolith. it is the largest generation in the history of our country. 20 by% of -- 20% of members of this generation -- 25% of this nation, are in this age bracket. host: natomas 27 in lancaster -- adam is 27 in lancaster, pennsylvania. caller: i wonder if any of your call-in shows the extremism to the other side, to the libertarian mindset. in the last election, ron paul

had a popular campaign and it was mainly on line three of people. -- on line through young people. can you compare that to the baby boomers? is this generally a more liberal generation? i think it tends to go to more extremes. i think we see more socialist communists. guest: that is another interesting point. one of the of the methodologies that we use, we conducted in statistical analysis.

i think we did pick up a libertarian streak in a relatively small, but passionate sector. we begin to talk about this libertarian streak among members of this generation. again, just the way the democrats have received the media, there are actually more republicans on facebook then democrats. members of the tea party organization have received a lot of attention. host: what about twitter? guest: it is far less relevant for those 18 to 29 years old.

it is somewhat surprising. we had members of our undergraduate survey group to try to figure out why. the reason we have figured out is that you can engage with people on facebook rather than just publishing information on twitter. young people are more interested in engaging than just exchanging its permission. host: this person tweet in -- and the ability to that? -- any validity to that? guest: it is hard to respond to

140 or so or less characters. the headline of the survey is the president's fairly significant increase in support. first, we looked at the relationship between his camp and the generic republicans, 38% are still undecided. a couple of years ago, the president had 66% of the vote share. he is still quite that high, which means that republicans have made a serious effort with this generation. host: diana, you are on the air.

caller: with all due respect, i do not believe that we will anneals will be respected or empowered until we start paying attention to the issues and voting to the issues. i cannot even tell you how many of my friends did not know what midterm elections were or the candidates. those are the elections that really count. guest: these are great callers this morning. for the first time in the 11 years of history of our survey, we had the number of young people in the midterm elections increase rather than decrease. we saw increased participation

among young people. a lot of the parties have realized the importance of the way in which they are targeting the message to them. but you are right. it goes both ways. these people do have to organize themselves to, absolutely. host: janjaweed sin -- john tweets in -- can you speak to that? guest: i was recently in a focus group situation and we found a lot of young people, they want to be teachers and one tuesday to their -- close to their home town. -- they want to stay close to

their home town. it is difficult with the budget crises most states to reading get a teaching job. 22% of 18 to 29-year-olds are actively seeking foreign new job. it is interesting to see how they are thinking about the world and politics. host: annette, what is your question or comment? caller: i would like to thank you for this study. i find it encouraging for the distant government that we have had. this is the first time under president obama that we have

gone fairly had a government of accountability and inclusion. i think we have for the first time the lady that is in charge of vegetation -- of the population. this is the first time i think we have ever had three women on the supreme court. host: tie this into our conversation. caller: i think the 36% of young people having confidence in a

letter to officials and thinking that they are honorable is an improvement over the past years. host: ok, let's get an answer to that. guest: it may be a slight improvement. and it has not changed significantly over the last decade since we asked the question. it is a serious concern and a, i think, should be to the entire country? we have so little respect for other people. 50 percent suntrust the u.s. military to do the right thing of all the time. -- 50% trust the u.s. military to do the right thing of the time. host: we are talking about a new survey of by harvard.

in taking a look at what the baliles have to say about the president -- the 2012 campaign, national newspapers, 49%. france and facebook, 35%. what do you make of those numbers? guest: the really great news from the survey is, of course, that president obama and his campaign have reset expectations with young americans. it is probably better news for all of the news rooms across america to say that among this generation, traditional news is not dead. well over 50% on college campuses still prefer to receive most of their news.

the second thing is, relationships. the integrated relationship is between those traditional sites and the sharing mechanism that is available on facebook. host: and the c-span is on facebook as well, so if you want to follow was, go to facebook .com/cspan. to villepin austin, texas. caller: i just want to encourage people in this generation to sit back and give time to their own

lives and focus on their own lives and not get too excited about politics. in my younger years i did not involve myself in politics at all. i just stayed focused on family and growing up the best i could. but i encourage people to study the constitution at that age word for word. get out a dictionary. the american language is very unique in the world -- host: we got your point. john, have you done a survey about the younger generations knowledge of how our government works? guest: i have not done a survey.

we do not believe in testing folks whether in this generation or another, about the constitution. you have a responsibility to yourself to study and produce a paid, whether in community service or politics or voting. i was recently traveling through a number of areas throughout the country and i found a lot of people in their 40's and 50's and 60's disappointed in themselves personally. early 30's's and they spend time doing the right thing in their own eyes, which was great. they spend time getting married and having families and did not

get more involved in politics. i would encourage young people to actively participate as much as they can. host: we have a tweet here -- arkansas.o you are on the air. caller: i think that a lot of young people are turning to the internet for informational lot more, especially with wiki- leaks. the a lot of people are becoming more aware of how we were duped into vietnam and how we are -- we were duped into going into iraq. all of these wars are imperialistic, illegal activities. host: let me ask you, how you get your information? what sources on line to you get your information?

caller: i mainly go through russian television, c-span, and wikileaks. host: ok, let's go to boston. go ahead, jordan. i think we lost jordan. call back and we will try to get you one. let's go to the next caller. caller: i think a lot of young people are kind of arrogant in the way that they receive information. i get the feeling that a lot of young people receive information from the internet and they are told it is secret information that they should not know. and since they know it, they are above the of the people in government. host: john della volpe?

guest: that is something i do not have a particular, and on in terms of relative to others in government. but traditional news is still an outsized role in informing the public. people do one analysis. they want to have a conversation. i do think of a lot of the news is coming from across america. host: could be a millennia plested naqoura kershaw for a 2010 election because they were disillusioned with the president turned to the right? guest: i think there's no question that people were

disillusioned in 2009 and 2010. what is significant about our survey released last week was not that the president's approval rating is 55%, but that is the highest it has been in two years. that is significant, i think. there are a number of things responsible for the relatively low turnout. it was 23% or so of all young people partisan bidding. clearly, but young folks are disappointed in the president's move to the right, but i think there are other reasons as well. host: stephanie, go ahead. caller: i am 30-year-old -- i am 30 years old.

i think of one of the reasons we do not go to vote is that we cannot point and click. i cannot go to my local website and get a rundown. guest: sometimes, i suppose, democracy is hard. but it has never been easy. i think it is important that those folks do pick up a newspaper or find a connection through family member to point in the right direction. one of the reasons i think there has been such an increase in these elections in the past decade, a couple of reasons. politics became very important intangible after 2001. -- and a tangible, after 2001.

the second thing is, there were a lot of organizations from the student organizations on campus to other organizations that try to diminish the barriers that were in place for folks to vote, in terms of absentee voting and providing a commission. the third point this -- is that there are tools to reach people on a regular basis. host: brian, go ahead. caller: 19 in certain situations or making decisions, and look at what my parents would do and how they would affected and it has made me has written to go to the

polls. host: the influence of parents on these young voters, john della volpe? guest: in the 2008 campaign, one thing that was really unique is that young people actually influenced their parents. it is usually the other way around. but the other point of the collar dress is one in to connect in a more significant way with an elected officials. social media has allowed us to do this, but are not sure if anyone has quite figured this out yet, that we should have more transparency and there should be a way for review their citizens to connect. i think our highest number is

29% of people who engage politically on baseball, whether it is liking some of your use in their profile -- politically on facebook, whether it is liking somebody or using their profile to engage politically. host: let's go to the next caller. caller: one thing that is discouraging to me is the officials, how they do not represent the demographic. sometimes a population is not see their faces represented in the officials. host: john della volpe? guest: that has certainly been the case for a long time in american history, but that is

not an excuse to not participate. it is an excuse to run for fide candidate that represents the demographic that you -- or find a candidate that represents a demographic the you come from. when americans reflect back on their high school education, overall they say it was excellent. the lowest ratings were for their civics curriculum. the caller might be right in terms of high schools across the country trying to do a better job. host: jim heinz street in -- and -- a tweet in --

but go back to the phone lines. caller: i have a very general question. since i've been going to school and when i graduated college, i have noticed a dichotomy. particularly with those in the military. some of the mdot support role we're doing in iraq and afghanistan, and others recognize the military- industrial complex. host: what is your point? caller: what do you think of

those that support the military or do not support the military based on the pentagon budget? guest: i can only respond to questions the well has to the past rather than projected to the future. i can say that young people see the role the military differently than other generations. the young people are sophisticated in the way that they see their world. young voters are more sophisticated than a lot of people think when it comes to a lot of these issues, especially when it comes to the military and world affairs. host: let's go to jerry in alabama. caller: i would ask -- like to ask about your methodology.

one of our problems was itself phones. -- was cell phones. i want to know how you handle that. guest: a couple of things i want to mention -- i think it is a great question. there are not enough questions about pulling methodology, quite frankly. in all of our survey work, we partner with the company called knowledge networks. the way in which we conduct our polling is we select people through two methodologies, random digit dialing and also sample based contact. the problem is that only 29% of

folks in our survey actually have a land line telephone. it is impossible to conduct a good survey using just those techniques. we contact people where they live and we ask them to participate on line. we can and shall provide that internet connection for them. we recruit people randomly and we send them to the internet. caller: i am listening to the whole discussion and the thing that keeps cropping of and my head is that one of the things that has not been talked about that much, maybe it is not so much disillusionment or whether or not people use facebook or twitter.

dagwell local razzie folks that are so caught up in the daily grind that it is difficult. i think that is a big reason why we end up not having people who represent us. i am of the thinking that the thing to do is to take these issues to the streets. host: john della volpe? guest: i think that is a great point. the idea of context i can be incredibly difficult -- the idea of context. it can be incredibly difficult to be a young person today. just the ability to stay in just the ability to stay in